No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense. Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.

RobSeace:Piizzadude: Can you yell fire in a crowded theater or is that illegal?

Well, if it's actually on fire, not only is it allowed, but it's a very good idea and highly encouraged!

Yeah, I laugh at that example of a restriction on a right, because it's not prior restraint. You *ARE* free to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you just need to be prepared to suffer the legal consequences afterwards. They don't muzzle you prior to entering.

So owning a gun should be the same: You can own them and use them, but you need to understand that you will face legal sanctions if you misuse them.

TuteTibiImperes:The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late). Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

TuteTibiImperes:Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

Um, exactly that hasn't only happened in the past, it's happened several different times in the past so it's a pattern and not one bad apple. Registration laws being followed with (technically illegal) seizures or persecution of the property registered, that is.

This is actually a pretty legitimate thing to engage in passive resistance over, historically speaking. Blatant violation of the second amendment tends to follow pretty inevitably.

// Which is why regulations are placed at the points of sale and not ownership in the first place.

I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

TuteTibiImperes:When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed.

No, it didn't. That is absolutely the worst time to be taking a legally owned firearm away from someone. Things have gone to shiat, and the government thinks it's a bright idea to make it more difficult for me to defend my family and myself. Nope. Completely wrong.

TuteTibiImperes:but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.

No, it wasn't. You don't get to deprive someone of a constitutionally protected right because "maybe, these law-abiding citizens might shoot someone". Like I said, twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

TuteTibiImperes:Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed. I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.

No, it wasn't. That's why there's specific language against it in the Constitution.

Piizzadude:If society as a whole says that law is just, then you must comply with it or face the consequences.

Ladies and Gentleman, what we have here is a man who would not only turn an escaped slave back over to his master, he'd do it proudly! For he is no criminal, and the law is the law. Why, up to the 1970's, he be exposing gay men and women to the police for their crimes, for he is no criminal and the law is the law.

TuteTibiImperes:The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late). Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

No, the best course of action is exactly what the people of Connecticut are doing: when a judge says, in effect, "well sure it infringes the Second Amendment, but THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" and when the legislators and the courts deliberately and wrongfully define any semiautomatic weapon as an "assault weapon" (which pretty much puts most pistols and hunting rifles, not to mention your basic 22LR, in that category as well), molon farking labe is precisely the right course of action.

Just because some nutcase kid shot up a school--and there are conflicting reports on whether he did it with a civilian AR-15 variant (which bears nothing in common with an actual military assault rifle besides cosmetic appearance) or a regular old rifle--does not mean that every single individual in the State of Connecticut or in the United States of America who owns a weapon capable of firing more quickly than a farking musket is going to go batshiat and start shooting up schools, movie theaters, or gatherings of people where politicians happen to be present.

Jesus Christ, put on your big boy/girl panties you bunch of pussies. Stop acting like Americans constantly accuse the French of acting and farking grow a pair. Never thought I'd live to see the day when the whole damned country needed to be tucked in with a teddy bear and a goddamned night light.

demaL-demaL-yeH:the Supreme Court ordered the city to allow him to register his handgun.Mandatory registration is constitutional

Mandatory registration was not decided in that case, the issue the Supreme Court decided was whether D.C. could arbitrarily and repeatedly deny someone to use the registration they had set up to deny him a firearm for his own defense.

I thought you were smarter than that, court cases are always about the contested point alone. Both Heller and McDonald involved gun owners who wished to register their firearm, so that was an uncontested point.

TuteTibiImperes:"Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed."

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, those who had obtained firearms for self-defense in anticipation of the rule of law possibly breaking down -- and who had stayed behind rather than evacuating knowing that they were prepared to protect themselves if needed -- were forcibly deprived of their ability to protect their lives and property by the very people who were supposed to be doing it for them, but weren't. If ever there was a real-world scenario that illustrated EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment is for, that was it.

Right. Because the government would never use something like a gun registry to go door-to-door to confiscate guns.

Oh, wait...

Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense. Let's not compare emergency measures in the middle of one of the worst natural disasters to ever face a city with a sunny Tuesday in CT though.

No, it can't/won't. There's absolutely zero chance of it saving lives. There's a tiny chance of it expediting punishment of the guilty, but that's about it. Balanced against the enormity of the invasion and threat of future abusive action it's simply not worth it.

Daemonik:Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh? As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

Wrong. Well regulated meant practiced, or capable. It meant people knowing how to shoot. This has been covered ad nauseum by experts and supported fully with primary sources.

I left Vermont for VA. Vermont has some of the loosest gunlaws in the country. Hardly any gun crime. And lo and behold, Burlington moron liberals are now pushing for the same type of laws. Democrats control the entire government, so might be able to get them passed on the state level (which they need to to allow a town to create ordinances).

What bugs me, is not a single law they pass does absolutely anything to reduce crime. Not one. All it does is create new criminals from the law abiding. Why can't liberals be honest? Why do they just lie, all the time? President said you can keep your rifles, you can keep your shotguns, etc. That the next big lie to surface, that we all knew about?

Sick of this crap. I own two rifles, a beautiful 1941 numbers matching K98, and a modern Springfield M1A. Had to have magazines sent from VT to VA to avoid being a felon transporting through NY state. We just got a Democratic Governor here in VA. How long till I am a felon as well? All for 100 rounds of target shooting a year, and collection factor? How long until the ancient bolt action rifle is illegal because the round is too big, or it was used in a war, or it has metal parts, or something stupid?

smoky2010:Unfortunately, we in CT only seem to get crappy candidates. They pander to the New Haven and "Gold Coast" areas of the state. In Eastern CT, we are basically ignored. None of them have any convictions that they are willing to stand behind.

Unfortunately again, this law will stand unless the Supreme Court kills it. There are too many people that don't understand the law and only know what people tell them. They say, "Yes, less guns would be great!" not realizing that it won't do anything to the illegal guns on the street. Once you start explaining that to most people they understand why this is a bad law. Also, the constant sensationalism on Sandy Hook on local and national media doesn't help either.

We fought it pretty farking hard up here in Litchfield Co, from Dems, to Reps, to Teabaggers alike. We *all* knew it was a bad law. On top of that, I like to chuck out the fact that gun permit registrations in Sandyhook went up something like 300% since the shootings happened, and it's flatly ignored. So the entire town can get guns, but because the vocal minority(and those that lost their children, whom I feel terrible for. Not just platitude, but genuinely feel for, and as such, understand their standpoint)have managed to get laws passed that only a minority wanted in the first place. CT, per capita, has some of the highest gun ownership rates in the country. Most of these people are law abiding, safe, and generally sport shooters or hunters. And it was like NO ONE even farking CONSIDERED the fact that a huge part of our economy in the state has to do with firearms manufacture. Which is now leaving the state in droves due to this. So, so many things wrong.

Still, I stand by the fact that, since the law is enacted, you should register. The way to fight the law is not by making yourself a non-voting felon. The way to fight the law is roll with it, then make just as much of a stink as that very vocal minority did. And in this case, the gun owners are the majority. I don't like the law, not one bit, but putting yourself on the wrong side of it isn't going to help your case.

Piizzadude:He isn't the last word, and so what if your 2nd amendment rights are "burdened", you are not losing them and your constitutional right to own a gun is still there. It is as black and white as speeding. Follow the law or get caught and pay the penalty.

Just register the gun and show how law abiding gun owners are

That is a wonderful argument. I've been issued speeding citations first for 'driving while teenager', 'driving a hot-rod', 'driving a sports car' (In one rare moment of honesty I was told - if you drive a car that looks like that you must have been speeding sometime even if you weren't right now), and 'driving near an officer who needs to make quota'. The last time I had a dash cam (LOVE THEM), showing I was driving 38 in a 40 (speedo said 40 - it reads a bit fast) when he said I was doing 51. The judges won't sustain a ticket less than 10 over unless they don't like you, so they're all for 10 over or more by some mysterious magic. So, in conclusion, fark you and fark your 'follow the law and you won't pay the pentaly'. Fark you to hell.

It does not say that the second amendment cannot come with terms and conditions, and if you say it does then everyone gets one. The nuts, the felons everyone.

You must be a citizen, and you must not be a felon - and that mean a felon as the founders defined it. (i.e. pot possession isn't sufficient to strip your rights)There is no other restriction. Specifically, the framers said and meant for there to be none. It does say it can't come with restrictions. It says exactly that.

The founders were classically educated. The knew what happened to democracy in Athens, and how it was lost.(to use Athens) They knew that 'the 400' eventually sent men to murder any who spoke for preserving democracy, while claiming submitting to their tyranny was the only way to prevent calamity - the real possibility that Spartans would murder all males. (the 411 BC tyranny) In fact 'the 400' had been conspiring with Sparta to undermine Athens' democracy for the purpose of installing themselves as tyrants, as did 'the 30' later.The broad strokes and little building block events have been repeated in different combinations many times in recorded history, with tragic, bloody, terrible consequences.The framers knew that horrible history. They knew no bit of paper stops terrible or selfish men, nor the stupid toadies that help enable them and that all countries have sociopath men like this. The 1st and 2nd amendment rights to speak and be effectively armed are crucial checks on those folks, especially if they're in the government. To keep using Athens - Judges and government officials were part of the conspiracy. There are no exceptions to make it harder for those folks to subjugate citizens. The framers meant the 2nd to mean the same weapons the government might turn on the citizens - i.e. military weapons. They said so, we have their words as they debated how to write the Constitution. Private ownership wasn't restricted until the 20th century.

TuteTibiImperes:Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed. I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.

Remember when the only way to collect phone records was with a person-specific warrant.

Remember how enhanced security measures on airplanes were a temporary measure in the wake of 9/11?

Do you know what a slippery slope is?

I used to be ambivalent about guns. These threads and people like you have made me pro-gun. I suspect I'm not the only one.

TuteTibiImperes:The best course of action at this point would probably be repeal the stupid pants wetter driven law. a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late). Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

jso2897:Aigoo: Jesus Christ, put on your big boy/girl panties you bunch of pussies. Stop acting like Americans constantly accuse the French of acting and farking grow a pair. Never thought I'd live to see the day when the whole damned country needed to be tucked in with a teddy bear and a goddamned night light.

Her, folks, stripped of all phony "maturity" and fake reasonableness, is the gun fapper argument - if you don't agree with them - you're a great big sissy. You can't really argue with that.I don't mean to say it's correct - you just can't argue with it.

No, it's more like "roll over and let your rights--all of them--be taken away in the name of "security" all you like. First Amendment? Hey, who cares if reporters get indicted for, well, you know, reporting? Second Amendment? Who needs self-defense? Third? Hey, let the police or whatever agency use your home as a staging ground, no worries! Fourth? Sure, you can frisk me, rifle through my belongings, search my phone, ipod, tablet, hard drives, read my e-mail...no worries! I have nothing to hide!

It's all in the name of National Security, so your Constitutional rights don't matter as long as the Government keeps you safe, right?

Nothing to do with guns. Everything to do with the Constitution. And I'll make the same argument in every NSA thread, every TSA thread, every cop breaking in and tasering/arresting you so they can use your house to stage a raid thread... but nice try there.

TuteTibiImperes:Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed. I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.

Made so much sense that in an EF5 with no houses standing, our governor threw DHS and their drones the hell out of the STATE. See, we saw what happened in Katrina and passed a little law down here that said "you don't get to claim 'state of emergency' and take our guns." I think there was one case of attempted looting in Moore last May. Notice the word 'attempted'. Because DHS got tossed out within a few hours of arriving and everyone still had their personal firearms. No one got shot to death, but looting? Yeah. Not so much.

hardinparamedic:And it's just as likely that they used the Project Stargate psychics from the CIA to determine who had a gun and where to go to confiscate. My theory has just as much evidence as yours. The actual truth is they went door to door in many neighborhoods and either asked people if they had a gun, or kicked in the door to "abandoned" houses and took the gun.

If your suggestion is that they used the State CCP list to confiscate "guns", the overwhelming majority of which were not hand guns but long arms and shotguns, I'm going to need a little more than your pokey conspiracy theory to believe you.

Maybe they used the CCP list, maybe they didn't. We'll never know for sure. However, that doesn't invalidate my points.

- the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past- any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again

Considering that Connecticut's governor has repeatedly called for sweeping state and national bans on so-called assault weapons, I wouldn't trust the government with knowledge of my firearms. California has already shown that gun registries can and will be used for confiscation, so why give Connecticut a chance to do the same thing?

TuteTibiImperes:Pokey.Clyde: TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed. I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.

Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

Pokey.Clyde:TuteTibiImperes: Given the circumstances at the time, the move made sense.

No, it didn't. People, in neighborhoods not flooded, and with plenty of provisions had their means of protection illegally taken away from them. Twist all you want, but nothing will make it right, nor legal.

When the rule of law had essentially broken down, it made sense to take measures to ensure that only those sworn and tasked to uphold the law would be armed. I'll admit that care should have been taken to record which firearms were taken from each person and every effort made to return all legally possessed firearms to their rightful owners once things had settled down, but the initial idea to reduce violence by reducing the number of guns floating around was a good one.

These types of laws that CT, NY, etc., pass are soft confiscation. They can't outright confiscate weapons (though they make noise about confiscation being "on the table"), so they cast a wider and wider net when it comes to defining "legal" weapons and accessories, under the mealy-mouthed guise that "you still have a right to certain guns, therefore the 2nd isn't being infringed." They then require registration of all of these weapons and their magazines (in some cases suggesting that owners be required to show proof of purchase in order to prove they were lawfully obtained, which especially in the case of magazines is horseshiat), and ban ALL transfers, including inheritance. What happens when you die and your legal property cannot be inherited by its rightful heirs, who can't legally take those items?

TuteTibiImperes:theprinceofwands: Good for them. I certainly would refuse as well, and encourage others to do the same. There's nothing the government can do when the people stand together.

Well, actually, they could arrest anyone who fails to register, convict them, and throw them in jail. If they all want to stand together and proclaim that they're commiting a felony it just makes it that much easier.

Added bonus, once they're convicted they'll lose their rights to vote, making it easier to pass firearm safety legislation in the future.

Works with small groups, not huge swaths of the population. You can't simply incarcerate 1/3 of a nation, or even declare them felons as it would decimate the ability of the nation to function. en masse, the people are impervious to control.

No, that wasn't your whacky idea.Whacky idea part 1, and I quote:It's long past time for those bearing arms- which really is military serviceWhacky idea part 2, quote againI'm talking about reinstating the organized Militia.We meet in the equivalent of the town square, drill, train, and qualify with our arms and ammunition, which are inspected.Every person 16 legally present in the United States and over until death dost thou part participates to the fullest extent possible - participation mandatory and with real penalties attached for missing drill.Alternative service is done by felons, the mentally ill, physically disabled, and conscientious objectors.Everybody is screened, physically and mentally for fitness for duty, and must meet minimum standards.You can own whatever firearms you qualify with, and you must keep them in proper repair and properly secured.Crew-served weapons are stored at the armory.

It's what the Swiss do.It's what the Founders did.It's what the Constitution specifically calls for.There's nothing whacky about it.It lets us cut the DoD budget and ensures that people of draft age are physically and mentally fit, and are competent with firearms.What the fark is your problem with that?Are you one of those entitlement types who believes that rights don't come with concomitant responsibilities?

Except that you're utterly and totally wrong that the founders did that, or that the constitution calls for it, thereby nullifying everything you say. As usual, since you're nothing but a lying, ignorant troll.

Boojum2k:demaL-demaL-yeH: Here's a nice quiz for you for civics class.

Current left-wing spin, meet actual Reagan quote:"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."

So your first pic is accurate, and the "quiz" is made of out-of-context bullshiat.

Current left-wing spin, meet actual Reagan quote:"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience."

So your first pic is accurate, and the "quiz" is made of out-of-context bullshiat.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh? As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written. Until then you just sound foolish.The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear. Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point. I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.

The invented backstory where I cite the Founders, the debates in Congress, the Constitution, the laws the Founders wrote, and the regulations they imposed in their own words?/Yeah, I can see how citing primary sources cuts my Fark credibility.

Farkage: Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

Sucks to be you.

I said in the last thread you f*cking idiot. You know, the one w ...

No, I read the freaking news articles. I even linked the police report for you.Nothing prevented the shooter from driving away.

And again, you ignore the facts that were written and invent what you need to in order to pretend you're smart. But you already know your own method of arguing, so it doesn't surprise me in the least when you ignore the reality of someone calling you out on it.And as I also said in an above comment, you certainly haven't listened to the Heller audio, have you? Of course not. And even if you did, since it contradicts what you "know for a fact to be true", you'd just ignore that as well.You're a troll, and should step up to the plate and admit it.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Farkage: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh? As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written. Until then you just sound foolish.The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear. Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point. I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.

The invented backstory where I cite the Founders, the debates in Congress, the Constitution, the laws the Founders wrote, and the regulations they imposed in their own words?/Yeah, I can see how citing primary sources cuts my Fark credibility.

Farkage: Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

Sucks to be you.

I said in the last thread you f*cking idiot. You know, the one where a guy was getting the crap beat out of him in a parking lot with a pool cue and shot his attacker? And you just KNEW how it all started and EVERYTHING even though the people on the scene knew none of it? You must be magical AND stupid!Start with reading comprehension you moron.

OR, we just keep our guns and anyone who doesn't like it can fark off.

We saw how quick the New Orleans PD was to give back the guns they illegally confiscated, just as we've seen how swift California is to give back guns they confiscate due to clerical errors. Oh wait...

demaL-demaL-yeH:Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh? As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written. Until then you just sound foolish.The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear. Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

You lost all credibility on any aspect of a gun control discussion in the last thread where you invented a backstory and presented it as "truth" to justify your own point. I found it particularly entertaining that you continuously posted links to the same 2 news articles while telling me "I can tell you didn't read them", when in fact neither one had anything in it to support your little pet theory.Life is hard. It's harder when you're stupid.

Oh, OH! You want to talk about what the Founding Fathers MEANT when they wrote "well regulated".. okay, sure.. in that case you can't own any gun that the Founding Fathers didn't own. Back to muskets & black powder for you sir. You might as well whine that the right to bare arms means you should be allowed to own nukes and that we should return to state militias instead of having a standing professional army.

Hand over your computer, your right to free speech only applies to goose quills and India ink.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Thunderpipes: demaL-demaL-yeH: Farkage: Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh? As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written. Until then you just sound foolish.The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear. Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

Umm, you take that to mean as the government takes away your guns. That is not the intent, and you know it. The intent was t be armed to defend against government if need be.

Bullshiat.The purpose was to ensure that the state militias would be armed so that they could enforce the laws of the United States, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions. Article I Section 8 in farking black and white.

You smoking crack? Maybe you should go get some Obamacare and sip hot chocolate in you PJs.

demaL-demaL-yeH:cartmans_evil_twin: demaL-demaL-yeH: Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late). Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

Ah, so basically "only those who can afford a physician long enough to be 'cleared' of any mental health problems can have firearms. And what about those who just get declared as "having mental problems" by a police officer who saw them for 10 seconds, or some state-funded doc who gets a bonus for every 'dangerous person' he writes up?

smoky2010:So, do you think that a convicted felon should be able to legal possess a firearm? That seems to be the case your making. I have yet to see any cases of people being forced to sell/ or dispose of firearms. CT certainly didn't do that. Generally, the laws are setup so that if you already own the weapon, you can keep it. You just can't buy another one. No one said that you have to get rid of them.

If it's a non-violent felony, why not?

I can understand the prohibition against convicted *VIOLENT* felons having guns: They've shown through their actions that they can't be trusted. I'm 100% OK with that.

But I see no benefit to society to have someone like Martha Stewart, convicted nonviolent felon, barred from firearms ownership for the rest of her life.

Maybe you can explain to me what vital societal purpose is served by that prohibition.

Farkage:Daemonik: Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh? As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written. Until then you just sound foolish.The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear. Listen to it and you might learn something.

Oh boy! It's this bullshiat again.Well regulated meant, well, regulated. Regulated has meant "controlled by rules" since Middle English.Somebody who uses the term "gun-grabber" with a straight face desperately needs that straw you're grasping at for his strawman.

incrdbil:I applaud the people ignoring this law. Register nothing. the gun grabber scum can never be trusted; any law that involves any form of registration is only initiated due to the desire to enable future confiscation.

I see the progressives have become authoritarian 'the law is the law' when civil disobedience is practiced by the other side.

I applaud the people ignoring this law. Register nothing. the gun grabber scum can never be trusted; any law that involves any form of registration is only initiated due to the desire to enable future confiscation.

I see the progressives have become authoritarian 'the law is the law' when civil disobedience is practiced by the other side.

TuteTibiImperes:Well, that flies in the face of the responsible 'law-abiding' gun owner doesn't it.

You mean like the people in basically every other country except Japan?

This level of defiance cannot be explained by the observation that criminals have an inelastic demand curve.80 A large slice of the ordinary citizenry seems to be operating under the same curve.Across the board, for countries large and small, developed and emerging, a strong defiance impulse is evident. In England and Wales there were 1.7 million legally registered firearms in 2005; illegal, unregistered guns were estimated as high as 4 million.81 The Chinese reported 680,000 legal guns in 2005, with estimates of nearly 40 million illegal guns.82 The German police union estimates that Germany has "about 45 million civilian guns: about 10 million registered firearms; 20 million that should be registered, but apparently are not; and 15 million firearms―such as antiques . . . and black-powder weapons . . . that do not have to be registered."83

It's almost a cliche story from the UK that some construction or renovation project turns up guns that an owner had hidden in order to

Fine, don't register your assault weapons, just don't complain when you get caught with an unregistered one and you're convicted of a felony and forever banned from owning any guns.

Isn't that a bit of circular reasoning, though? "Hey, you owned these guns which are totes legal to own, but you didn't tell us about them, so now even though there is no legal bar for you to own them, you've committed a felony by owning a gun that is legal for you to own. Because you didn't tell us".

And so what if that *DOES* happen? It hasn't worked in the UK as I pointed out above, and if you read that law review article I posted you'd really understand the depth of the problem. In farkin' *CHINA*, the number of illegal, unregistered guns outnumbers the legally registered ones by nearly 6 to 1. In a country with no real "gun culture" and a legal system that doesn't really bother too much with the niceties of "individual rights".

Plus, we'll just make more. I can make a functional firearm with just the stuff you can buy at your local Home Depot. It's not that hard for someone who is handy. In fact, it's actually easier to make something like a submachine gun than it is to make a semi-auto. And if you're already barred from owning a gun in the first place, what's to stop you from either making a real machine gun, or modifying one you bought on the black market to full auto? If you get caught with it, you're up shiat creek either way, so why not?

In the final analysis, you assume that just because a law is passed, that "law abiding" people will follow it. When it comes to something that people consider to be a fundamental right, you're wrong. *YOU* might not consider it a fundamental right, but *THEY* do. That doesn't make them bad people. They aren't going to go out and start raping old ladies and bayoneting babies because they decided not to register their guns. To them, though, they are answering to what they consider to be a higher law: The Constitution. You may well disagree, but that doesn't make them felons any more than possession of an unregistered copy of Das Kapital or Mein Kampf would make you a felon if a law were passed forbidding unregistered private ownership of those tomes.

Daemonik:Pokey.Clyde: The_Sponge: Good God I hope you are trolling. Way to give an advantage to looters.

I figured you knew by now that they are in nearly every gun thread, shiatting all over the second amendment and pissing their pants over the mere thought of guns.

You want to worship the 2nd Amendment? Fine, how about you remember the part where it says "WELL REGULATED" eh? As in, the Government knowing what guns you have and requiring you to show knowledge in their care, use & proper storage.

You need to learn what "well regulated" meant at the time the Constitution was written. Until then you just sound foolish.The audio of the entire Supreme Court Heller case is available in several places on the internet, with all testimony from both sides as well as the questions from the Justices quite clearly there for all to hear. Listen to it and you might learn something.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Securitywyrm: TuteTibiImperes: The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late). Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

That's the thing about the courts, they can change their mind. They change their mind a lot. Registration is always the first step towards confiscation.

Consider this: You register your gun. Then one year you have a really bad year and see your doctor about depression. The police then show up at your door and demand you turn over your guns, because they can access both the gun registration and your medical records. This pushes people who would otherwise seek medical attention to avoid it.

So you believe that people who are mentally ill should have firearms, no matter that the Supreme Court specifically said that they should not.

So, in your mind, someone diagnosed with depression shouldn't be allowed to have firearms? My wife is an Army officer. After her first trip to Iraq, she went to mental health, was diagnosed with mild depression, and prescribed Lexapro. She has had her security clearances renewed, and redeployed a couple of times, where she had a weapon on her at all times. But in your mind, we shouldn't be allowed to have a .22 in our house, because... Why?

smoky2010:t's pretty well known that Malloy is a putz. He is also very vindictive. The issue besides Malloy in CT, is the 2 new senators, Murphy & Blumenthal. I have never liked Murphy, he is just a grand stander. Blumenthal though, I had a lot of respect for when he was the Attorney General. I have lost all of that respect for him with his actions as a Senator. Both of these jokers backed Malloy just to get into the papers and try to say "Look at me"

I don't think any of these people will survive reelection.

Murphy? Likely not. Bluementhol? His follwing is very loyal. And like you, I became disenfranchised with him when he became a senator. He did great things for the state as AG, but then went full derp once Mr Smith Mr Mr Blumenthol went to Washington.

There's nothing about this bullshiat that isn't kneejerk. And they're completely blind to that fact because some people(who, granted, went through unimaginable tragedy)screamed very loud about it. They are not indicative of the million+ gun owners in the state. On top of this delicious bit of irony, the town of Newington had something like a 300% rise in permit requests since the shooting. It's depressing, all around.

/and for the record. I'm the libbiest lib that has ever libbed. Well, in Litchfield County, anyway//but I take our constitutional rights very seriously. That's part of being an actual liberal. Without constitutional amendment, there should be no changes like this. I was against the brady bills, as well. Just as I'm against any first amendment changes, privacy laws, etc.

I think we're okay with you voluntarily not owning a firearm. I'm a little sketchy about you being able to vote, since you do not understand history, law, or firearms, yet feel free to make pronouncements on all.

And meanwhile, they're confiscating guns using a registry. They've proven that an American government cannot be trusted with that information.

In the 80's, when some assholes were calling for HIV-positive people to be rounded up for public safety, would you have started fighting the idea at registering them or when they were being trucked off?

When the government demonstrates it cannot be trusted in a particular area, it must have more restrictions on it for that area.

Aigoo:But for what it's worth, given the President's track record with drones, I don't give a damn what they're used for, I do not trust our government with drones on US soil for any reason whatsoever. So I support that call and would support it again. I'll personally go house to house before I'll trust a drone in Oklahoma skies. Talk about a guy who shouldn't have access to weapons. Jesus!

You do realize that the Civilian GlobalHawk models currently used by civilian letter agencies are completely incapable of carrying any kind of munitions,right?

Boojum2k:Aigoo: Nothing to do with guns. Everything to do with the Constitution. And I'll make the same argument in every NSA thread, every TSA thread, every cop breaking in and tasering/arresting you so they can use your house to stage a raid thread... but nice try there.

This. That comment you were responding to made me wish Fark had a "Dumb!" button.

You guys are the gun grabbers favorite gun fappers - you are their poster children for the attack on gun rights.Your juvenile, emotional, fake-macho arguments make gun rights advocates look like children. There are times I actually suspect some of you of being false flags - your "arguments" are that counterproductive.But keep on handing them evidence that gun owners are all idiots - your personal emotional gratification is what's at stake here, I guess.

hardinparamedic:Pokey.Clyde: Maybe they used the CCP list, maybe they didn't. We'll never know for sure. However, that doesn't invalidate my points.

- the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past- any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again

And yes, they will do it again.

And as a CCP holder, I think I'll continue to abide by the law instead of being paranoid that GUBAMENT GON COME AND TAKE MAH GUNS! and promote inane conspiracy theories with no proof behind them.

And I'll sleep better knowing there is at least some vetting and a basic level of competency of the people who pack heat on the street.

But this isn't talking about CCP/CCL holders. This is talking about rifle owners and non-permit holders who are being told to register any firearm that has a capacity over <insert arbitrary capacity determined by legislator in whatever state> that if they do not register a firearm, they are felons.

Completely different situation, hardinparamedic. Many times I agree with you. This time, I do not. Because you are conflating the issue of concealed carry with gun ownership and the two are not mutually inclusive.

While I agree that violent offenders (that is, those who have been convicted of violent crimes), stalkers, people with restraining orders/no contact orders, mentally ill/mentally deficient/mentally incapacitated in any way individuals shouldn't be allowed to own or be in possession of firearms and that those who do possess firearms ought to have at least basic safety and marksmanship, I do agree that history has proven over and over ad nauseum that government-mandated registration does tend to lead to weapons confiscation. And the rallying cry used throughout the 20th century was almost always "think of the children!" and "safety and security!"

Not to be the jackass who Godwins the thread, but talk to a German old enough to remember. Because I have--just this week, in fact. And they are horrified that we are allowing this to happen in this country. And no, they are not registering their guns because they remember all too well what happened the last time they did.

hardinparamedic:And as a CCP holder, I think I'll continue to abide by the law instead of being paranoid that GUBAMENT GON COME AND TAKE MAH GUNS! and promote inane conspiracy theories with no proof behind them.

Christ, you are either one dense motherfarker, or trolling. There is no denying that the government has illegally confiscated firearms in the past (there's plenty of proof), and that any type of registry/list of gun owners makes it that much easier for them to do it again (simple common sense here).

hardinparamedic:And I'll sleep better knowing there is at least some vetting and a basic level of competency of the people who pack heat on the street.

And I never said otherwise. Personally, I have had neither the want, nor the the need for a CCP. Should that ever change, I most certainly will jump through all necessary hoops to legally obtain said permit.

hardinparamedic:Pokey.Clyde: I said something like a gun registry. And a list of people with carry permits is a list of people who own guns. Not as complete of a list as, say, a mandatory gun registry. But, nonetheless, a list of gun owners was used to illegally confiscate legally owned firearms.

[img.fark.net image 326x463]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]

Maybe I should break it down for you?

Gun registry = list of people who own gunsCarry permit = you are on a list that says it is legal for you to carry a firearm, which means in all likelihood you own at least one firearmLouisiana has no registry, but does issue carry permits.Without some type of list, how would the police and national guard have known which houses to go to in order to confiscate guns?

Sure is, sparky. You're in a situation where law is breaking down, and people are going apeshiat. Going around and illegally confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens, during a time they're far more likely to need to use one to protect themselves, is by definition unreasonable. Besides, there's that whole pesky second amendment thing, you know?

Jim_Callahan:TuteTibiImperes: Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.

Um, exactly that hasn't only happened in the past, it's happened several different times in the past so it's a pattern and not one bad apple. Registration laws being followed with (technically illegal) seizures or persecution of the property registered, that is.

This is actually a pretty legitimate thing to engage in passive resistance over, historically speaking. Blatant violation of the second amendment tends to follow pretty inevitably.

// Which is why regulations are placed at the points of sale and not ownership in the first place.

What was DC v. Heller about, then?Oh, that's right, the Supreme Court ordered the city to allow him to register his handgun.

The best course of action at this point would probably be a public awareness campaign combined with an extension of the registration time limits (with a fine for doing so late). Run ads listing the characteristics of the weapons that fall under the law, let them know that they have until July 1st to register them and pay a minor fine with no criminal penalty, and that if they're caught with an unregistered weapon after that date they'll be charged with a felony.

Just register your dang guns people, the courts have been pretty clear that they're not going to let a law stand that allows the government to take them away.